Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:43:35 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Message-ID: <202201251843.ajn72lsfpt36@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c42cb38a-ac42-dd92-2935-dce3b9806e26@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202201251843.ajn72lsfpt36%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Jan-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> +decinteger		{decdigit}(_?{decdigit})*
> +hexinteger		0[xX](_?{hexdigit})+
> +octinteger		0[oO](_?{octdigit})+
> +bininteger		0[bB](_?{bindigit})+

I think there should be test cases for literals that these seemingly
strange expressions reject, which are a number with trailing _ (0x123_),
and one with consecutive underscores __ (0x12__34).

I like the idea of these literals.  I would have found them useful on
many occassions.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/